9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Appellants are manufacturers of two wheel and three wheel Motor articles and during the material period manufactured Motor Cycle KB. 100", and 3233 Vehicles manufactured were kept in the Bonded Store Room. Because some complaints were received about proper performance of the Motor Cycle of the said model, on research and tests, it was decided to replace Engine Sprockets and Fourth Gear. The appellants, therefore, sought permission from the jurisdictional Superintendent for removal of all those vehicles from BSR for the purpose of such replacements. The permission was accordingly granted and process of replacement was carried out and the vehicles were again placed in BSR and then removed on payments of appropriate duty. The parts that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uded that the waste and scrap covered under Rule 57F would be only such which generated during the course of manufacture of the final products. He further held that the subject parts discarded were not on account of they being defective and observed that these parts were actually fitted in the vehicles when they rolled out of the factory. In his opinion they could be treated as parts which came for remaking, reconditioning etc. and for destruction thereof provisions of Rule 196B and 173P ought to have been followed. He, therefore, rejected the appeal. 3. Mr. L.B. Attar, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellants have also declared scrap as their final products tn the declaration filed vide Rule 57G of the Rules. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the averments in the sald letter do not indicate that the said parts would be removed as scrap. It is only an information that the parts had no utility value for them. The position could have been viewed differently if there was a clear averments that they would be disposing of the parts as scrap. The data on which the contentions is raised therefore, is not adequate enough and date of removal as scrap being not furnished, the aspect of limitation cannot be held in favour of the appellants. 6. The main issue for consideration is whether the subject parts could be treated as waste and scrap. 7. `Waste and Scrap as defined in Section Note 6(a) of Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 reads thus : Metal waste and scrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
